So they are saying it's the co-pilot's fault because he appiled the rudder, which then in turn ripped the tail off.

BULLSHIT!!! :evil: :evil:

I love this quote, "Benzon also said that the rudder control system on the aircraft is sensitive at higher air speeds, which is potentially hazardous. "

Does he think the public are idiots? Do you see airliners falling out of the sky when rudder is applied at 500mph? In this instance, Flight 587 couldn't have been going faster than 300mph, seeing that it just took off. AND they expect us to think that turbulance from a 747 caused this whole problem? You gotta love the spin the government feeds us.

I believe theyare saying as the rudder appeared unresponsive the co-pilot applied more and more pressure. Given the moment and torque applied by the rudder as he applied more and more rudder why couldn't the force exerted be so much the tail tore off.

Only been through private pilot training but full rudder ops were not encouraged as it was a good way to put a plane in a stall.

As for wake vortices from heavys this is a very well known problem but there is supposed to be a spacing interval to help minimize a following aircraft flying into the vortices....however if an aircraft did the descending vortices can cause large dsruption of lift for the craft unlucky enough to fly through them.

Yes I had flight experience in the Air Force before being unceremoniously booted due to having eczema (a skin rash disorder). Can you tell I'm a little bitter? :wink:

The whole Flight 587 story reeks of a cover up. This happened a scant 2 months after 9/11. Also the engines dislodged from the wings before impact and were found a great distance from the main crash site.

Plus common sense comes into play.......the aircraft was still travelling at a relatively low speed when rudder was applied. Big deal. This does not cause whole tail sections to be ripped from the fuselage.

Also don't you think the FAA would ground ALL Airbus A300-600's after this accident, to check ALL tails?? Nope, never happened.

It's never been made public or shown. Eyewitness accounts that day said one of the engines was on fire BEFORE the plane broke up. Obviously this video shows exactly what happened but doesn't jive with Government's "official story".

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/default.htmIn New York, crash investigators have been looking at the way the fin was secured to the fuselage. It has emerged that one of the six mounting points was reinforced during a repair 13 years ago, before the aircraft was delivered to the airline.

But it is also clear that the fin sheared off above the mountings, raising questions about the strength of composite materials used in the tail structure. An expert from the Federal Aviation Administration has been called in to examine the wreckage.

Meanwhile, the aircraft's flight data recorder is still being analysed, and crash investigators also have the accounts of eyewitnesses, who described how the A300 appeared to "wobble" before entering a steep, spiral dive.

No-one doubts that the loss of the tail fin would have made it impossible for the pilots to keep control of the Airbus.

The key to the investigation is establishing just how it came off.

So the Tail sheared off becuase of what that they would want to cover up?[/url]

No, not really. What it sounds like is NTSB officials under a lot of pressure from the airline and Airbus (who are embroiled in legal battles) to determine the root cause of the accident. There is rarely a clear line of evidence in cases like this, and the explanation seems to be their best guess for what might have caused the crash, even if it is an incomplete theory.

First of all, the vast majority of aircraft accidents in this day and age are caused by human error. Sure, you have the occasional mechanical failure or just bad luck, but even those cases are often caused by a cascade of events that start with (or contain at some point) human error.

The rudder sensitivity issue and the turbulence after takeoff suggests to me that the co-pilot had trouble adjusting the rudder properly (as the article mentions NTSB conclusions that the A300 rudder system is unusually sensitive) and the aircraft entered into pilot-induced oscillations. Such oscillations definitely could propagate to the point of causing shear failure in the tail section, especially if it was previously repaired for fatigue or damage. The problem with composite materials is that they tend to fail all at once, wheras metallic materials (i.e. aluminum) fail gradually.

The fact that the rudder was unusually sensitive is problematic, but the co-pilot's response (again, taking their explanation at face value) easily could have been overaggressive and completely unnecessary.

Quote from: "Jaddison"

As for wake vortices from heavys this is a very well known problem but there is supposed to be a spacing interval to help minimize a following aircraft flying into the vortices....however if an aircraft did the descending vortices can cause large dsruption of lift for the craft unlucky enough to fly through them.

Wake vortices are a problem for light aircraft, but an A300 would have been virtually unaffected (other than slight turbulence) from even a 747's wake.

I don't see anything in these articles that suggests wake vortices were even involved. Am I missing something?

Stated that a 747 took off and 1:45 later the Airbus took off, 15 seconds sooner than procedure for wake turb avoidance but not considered and issue.

The first bang/noise they hear of flight recorder they think is the Airbus hitting wake turbulence, which you are right should not cause an Airbus to crash but would have them fly through somewhat severe turb whicxh is when they think the co-pilot started incorrectly using the rudder.

The first bang/noise they hear of flight recorder they think is the Airbus hitting wake turbulence, which you are right should not cause an Airbus to crash but would have them fly through somewhat severe turb whicxh is when they think the co-pilot started incorrectly using the rudder.